2017 (6) TMI 671 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - services rendered by the foreign company for due diligence of purchase of mines in Indonesia and Turkey - environmental impact assessment in connection with setting up of Thermal power plant - setting up of plant and clearance from Airports authority - environmental consultancy services for setting up of coal based super critical Thermal Power Plant in Chattisgarh - whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on various consultancy services received by them or otherwise? - Held that - the services for which service tax liability was paid does not seem to be input services which are in line in the manufacturing of final products of the appellant. Extended period of limitation - Held that - In the absence of any communication from the department to the appellant as to the correctness of the cenvat credit availed, I find that the plea that the show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 seeking the demand of cenvat credit availed during the period Sept. 2011 to August 2012 is blatantly hit by limitation - demand barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on consultancy services.
2. Contestation on merits and limitation.
3. Nexus of services received with manufacturing activity.
4. Invocation of extended period for show cause notice.
5. Compliance with disclosure requirements in monthly returns.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The main issue in this case was the eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit on consultancy services received. The appellant, a manufacturer of ferro Alloys, availed Cenvat credit on various services such as due diligence of mines, environmental impact assessment, and consultancy for setting up a Thermal Power Plant. The audit team alleged that the appellant availed ineligible credit, leading to a show cause notice.

Issue 2: The appellant contested the show cause notice on both merits and limitation. The appellant argued that the services were essential for their business of manufacturing High Carbon Ferro Chrome. The appellant claimed that they disclosed all details in their returns, and the department failed to verify the correctness of the availed credit. The appellant cited previous tribunal cases where appeals were allowed only on limitation due to lack of specific invoice details.

Issue 3: The department contended that the services received had no connection to the manufacturing activity of the appellant. They argued that the services were unrelated to manufacturing and were for activities like due diligence of coal mines and environmental impact assessments for power plants. The department also supported the invocation of the extended period for the show cause notice.

Issue 4: The decision focused on whether the extended period for the show cause notice was justified. The tribunal found that the appellant had disclosed the Cenvat credit in their returns, and the department failed to verify the details. Citing previous cases, the tribunal held that the show cause notice was time-barred due to the lack of communication from the department.

Issue 5: The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper verification by the department based on the information provided in the returns. The tribunal dismissed the department's reliance on certain case laws, stating that the facts of those cases were different from the present case. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order based on the limitation issue, emphasizing the importance of proper verification by the department and citing previous cases where appeals were allowed on similar grounds.